Peter Cairns

MikeyD, hitting GPS is a fair bit off, but this does mean that they can almost certainly deploy FOB's at will, and depending on the terminal guidance they have that could really change things. Peter.

Still way behind but another example of Chinese progress and increased capability. BBC News Peter.

John, As an aside Flight Magazine has a news report this week on a study to put PAC3 Patriots on F-15E's for TBMD. It looks broadly similiar to the 80's ASAT proposal but with wing mounted as opposed to a centre line missile. Peter.

Steve, As a start I think that the new icon system for identifing troops will be a big help. However, given that CMx2 tracks actual line of sight and fire rather than abstracts it, when in a way treating jungle cover like a kind of "jello" for fire and "Fog" for fighting, with a "density" might be easier on the CPU, I can see that you will have your work cut out. I agree that by it's nature it's been avoided as much in real warfare as games, and certainly there were those on the US side in Vietnam, like Vann who argued that if the VC want it let them keep it as it's killing more of us and them than we are of each other. You can have a good Vietnam or PTO game with it at the margins, but you still have to make it work. Peter.

Given the scale and nature of CMx2 and the fact that Jungle games in general seem very difficult to do, is a Jungle version of CM actually likely to be any good possible let alone. BF never did do the pacific and it's always (to me anyway) never seemed that enthusiastic about Vietnam. Could it be that the nature of very dense vegitation, both trees and ground cover, make it impractical or just repetative and hard to follow. Peter.

Steve, You should consider a module that deals with nothing but the casualties and civilians and leaves all the fighting to the AI for both sides. Then see if you can get the UN, UNHCR or Unesco to buy it to give to schools etc, or even the red cross (or is it diamond now) for PR or training. As far as I know even with the vast amount of concern about civilian casualties and the human cost of war, no one has ever really tryed to do a "Medic" game. I doubt it would be a big seller for Gamers but an agency , organisation or charity might be interested. Peter.

Just like to much emphasis on background texture, I'd sacrifice accuracy on camoflage if it kept the game flowing. At the end of the day once the action starts you should hopefully have more on your plate that to admire the view. Peter.

Steve, Although i asked about rubbish, focusing more on the personnel is a good call, as it means hat you can quickly visually check the guys you are commanding and concentrating on. Peter.

John, Given that most insurgent snipers can't hit beyond 500m's and that they tend to operate in dense urban areas, a gun that can hit at 2,000m isn't going to be of great use if the sniper using it can't see more than 300m in any direction. As to human shields (unwilling or otherwise) usually you don't see them until it is to late, and the Israeli's have been demolishing potential firing positions for nearly fifty years and it hasn't made the west bank or Gazza strip havens of peace and happiness. I am just sceptical about the line of thought that says "We can solve this problem with a new weapon". The law of unintended consequences should make us at least stop and question if a new weapon will create a new problem. Peter.

In general we could do with more, rubbish/dirt. It might be that like the random adding of equipment/damage to vehicles their could be a terrain equivelent, although it as as said a beta. Peter.

John, So if the sniper holds a family hostage, it's a half dozen dead civilians ( plus their neighbours) and another "American attrocity" story on every Arab TV..... Yeah John,.... "awesome". Peter.

Michael, Yes I did put company, but I think if you take it more as "small unit" engagement or "tactical" then you could include Jones and I'd be happy with Platoon commanders too. Peter.

JonS, You are of course right in the sense that great Coy CO's who we don't know about won't get votes, and I suppose you can argue (and I certainly would) that anyone who commands a company in combat deserves some repect. It will probably also be dominated by people who went on to "bigger" things as there earlier careers will have been documented. So we are restricted to accounts of Commanders in combat and to select from them. I once read Sheehan's "A Bright Shinning Lie" and was pretty inpressed with Vanns early career in korea. Peter.

I think H Jones more than deserved his VC, but can he really qualify as "best" with only one engagement. I am sure that WW1 and WW2, not to mention Korea and Vietnam, would give examples of consistent excellence over time, and then I am sure at least someone will bring up a name from the the US civil war. Rommel in WW1 has been mentioned, and I seem to remember that Patton had a colourful early career, although like I say Iam no expert. Then of course if we want to destroy any attempt at a good discussion all it needs is someone to mention Kennedy or Kerry. Peter.

We've had plenty of discussions (fights...), about greatest ever American etc, but given that the focus of CM:SF will be commanding a Company sized force, I thought I'd see what people thought. Not being a grog on these things I am no expert, indeed my nomination for best ever small unit commander will be..... "DOC" from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. So what are peoples nominations, Peter.

MikeyD, As a taster I think a simplified " generic" game could work, sort of "Army Guys" style with "Green v Blue" I type of tank APC and unit each side plus basic artillary and airpower. Having said that, you could't do it till CMx@ was ready to go and as by that point you would already have the Strykers and BMP's etc ready, it would probably be more effort than a demo. Peter.

As far as I am aware, Egypt has had a deal with Pakistan to service and upgrade it's F-16's, and it actually manufactures it's own M1's. But for me it would be a short war where production and support aren't the main issues. Neither issue seems to be part of the thinking for CM:SF. Peter.

I was talking to a friend who was involved in GW1 and he said that both British and US service personnel were surprised and impressed by the quality of the Egyptians. That doesn't mean that the were brilliant, but a lot better than people had expected them to be. So I had a bit of a search and although I pretty much feel Israel would be the clear favourite and winner, it's not necessarily the mismatch you might expect. Recently I know there was speculation about Egypt trying to re-militarise the Sinai so a limited conflict could emerge. Anyway some rough figures that are relevant. Israel. 80 F-15's ( a big factor, Egypt has nothing close) 250 F-16's various types, but some new. 60 F-4's plus some in reserve and Wild Weasels. 100 A-4's Egypt. 220 F-16's most older than Israels. 20 Mirage 2000 a good plane but no F-15.... 60 Mirage 5's many refurbished. 70 F-7 Skybolts ( Pakistan/Chinese) 60 Mig 21MF ( not much use unless they get to the A-4's) Israel. 40 Apache , about a fifth Longbow. 55 Cobra Egypt. 35 Apache, no longbow as far as I know, 5 Cobra. Israel 1600 Merkava, all three types plus some Mk4? 500 M60A3, plus local enhancements. 700 M60A1, again upgraded. 500 M48A5, ditto 300 Centurion A41 Egypt. 800 M1 Abrams (possibly some A1 plus standard) 1700 M60A3 probably less capable than Israel's 450 T-62, some pgraded. 350 T-55 11, local upgrades. In a Sinai scenario Israel might not able to deploy it's full forces, as it's Northern borders could not be left undefended. A fair bit of the above could be upgraded from CM:SF, M1s, T-62's, Attack helicopter and F-16 strikes, plus at least some egyptian and Israeli artillary. The rest would need to be new but the main components aren't really that numerous. Peter.

With Mac OS leopard due out within 3 months it might be worth waiting to see how far Apple have advanced BootCamp. After all it might suit them to let people run software written to run on windows on a Mac, but there dosen't seem much business sense in them encouragng people to buy windows. A system that let you run PC games without buying windows would seem to be a better thing for them to pursue, or as close to it as you can get. Peter.

I am for history as opposed to nostalgia, which is what we are actually talking about here. Vietnam or Korea are history with a wealth of actual combat material to draw from. I suspect that for the average person on this forum, although it ranges from 15 to 55, will be 25 to 4. So go back an average of 15 to 25 years and we were kids in the cold war and when we got the war game bug, M-60's and T-62's were the "bees knees". Steves, right ( and I haven't been saying that a lot recently),this isn't really a good basis for a game either historically or commercially. It only gets high marks here because when most of us were in our formative years thats the war we thought ( and fought) about, or might even have been in, which tends to focus the mind and stick in it. So in the words of the ubiquitious traffic cop.... "Move along folks, there's nothing to see here". I am off to Canada for thee weeks tommorrow so you will be free of me for a while, which should make most of your Christmas' that bit happier. Peter.

Steve, Not really knowing the us ( or anyone elses for that matter) support system very well, I am absolutely no help. Although I'd think being alerted to colleges fire request and perhaps needing them okayed by the highest ranking player, would be worth considering. Also some visual representation on the map of when and where they are due to land might be worth considering, even if it is a toggle option. It's probably a fair bit off but I think it's worth people batting round ideas now, you never know someone might well come up with an elegant solution. Peter.

Steve, In multi player sceanrios where you have say four US players ( 3 platoon, plus Coy Co), will there be a way to see what artillery missions your co players are calling, and how will the system handle multiple requests. Will it be first come first served or will missions be scrubed for higher authority or priority. Equally if you happen to call in fire on one of your team mates, will you get VP penalties ( I assume if you have a team each player would get an individual score rather than just the whole team) Will you get a target indicator that shows where and when friendly support will arrive, even if you didn't initiate it, or will it be up to players to keep each other up to date and coordinate these things. I'd hate to see unrealistic amounts of friendly fire, not to mention someone just doing it for a laugh. Peter.

I'd like to see road side posters of the BF design team in suits and dark glasses, a sort of cross between President Assad and Reservoir Dogs. It would be a good in game tribute..... what is arabic for "Moon". Peter.

Steve, Fair enough, it would limit doing lots of scenarios, like Pakistan v India where both have a lot of soviet kit that pretty much matches Syria, but I guess neither is an exact match. Likewise a lot of Northern African and the Horn scenarios would work well if you had a limited Red capability. But like you have said from the start our not going for "bells and whistles" anymore. Still I suppose an air module might be possible at some point giving you the option to add it. Is the support component fixed, or could it be moduled so that at some point in the future you could have things like, A force with US equipment but soviet support or A soviet equipped ground force with support from US artillery or US Navy airpower. Peter.

Steve, At the risk of getting my head bitten off for just asking a question... Does this mean that you aren't putting Red air support in the scenarios, or no air support in the game at all, so that you can't call it in for either side even in your own "Red v Red" scenarios. I know it was only a throw away comment, but I'd be interested to know. I am assuming if you play "Blue v Blue" both sides could have it. Peter.